Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/04/01 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA April 1, 1968 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the above date in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, with the following members present: Stewart, York, Hyde, Gregson, Rice, Adams, and Guyer. Absent: None. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Planning Draftsman Liuag, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Guyer-Gregson) Minutes of the meeting of March 18, 1968 be approved, as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) - VARIANCE - 281 Eucalyptus Court - Request to use R-1 property for access for multiple-family use F. Ferreira The application was read in which a request was made to use property zoned R-1 for access for parking for a proposed apartment complex. ~irector of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property, the adjacent land use and zoning. He explained that the matter was continued from the last meeting at the applicant's request. The staff originally assumed that the access would be off Eucalyptus Court, but the applicant states it will not. Mr. Warren then referred to the large plot plan which showed the access for the apartments would be from Bonita Glen Dr~ve. He indicated that whether or not the access is from Eucalyptus Drive was not the point--some exceptional circumstance must be found to justify granting the request. The staff feels that the entire development should be accommodated in the R-3 zone and thus recommends denial of the request. Director Warren then discussed a suggestion made to the applicant, to which he agreed, that a solid fence be constructed adjacent to his parking area that would preclude dumping traffic from the apartments onto Eucalyptus Court. He then made reference to a petition received from property owners opposing this request. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Frank Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, Bonita, contended that the people who signed the petition did so because they were misinformed about the request by the City. They were told that access would be off Eucalyptus Court, but this is not so. Mr. Ferreira cited a few access possibilities and noted that the one he proposes to use, off Bonita Glen Drive, was the most difficult and expensive one to make. It will go through the commercial area and not the residential area. He explained the need for the parking spaces on this west side of his proposed R-3 development stating that when the new proposed comprehensive zoning ordinance is adopted, the parking requirements will not be so s~ringent and he will be able to drop these spaces. He commented that he may still have to use Eucalyptus Court for access to these spaces, should the variance be denied; however, this was not his intent. The subject property is the largest lot in his subdivision and the remainder of the property, after the access is taken out, will be built upon. -2- Member Rice questioned the possibility of moving the entire development to the east. Mr. Ferreira declared that it would cut down the depth of a lot he is reserving for commercial purposes. It is presently zoned R-3. He continued to explain that Eucalyptus Court would be used to provide access for an additional six or seven lots to the south which will be built with single-family homes. He is willing to take this variance request on a temporary basis until such time as the new zoning ordinance is adopted. As to the barricade, Mr. Ferreira indicated he would barricade part of the apartment parking lot so that all of the cars from the apartment complex will not be using Eucalpytus Court. Mr. J. Quick, 286 Eucalyptus Court, stated he was told by the applicant that the area presently zoned R-3 would be developed in single-family residential lots. If Eucalyptus Court is allowed to be used for access for the applicant's proposed apartments, it would increase traffic to a great amount. As to the barricade the applicant is willing to put up, this could be taken down any time and the traffic allowed to flow through this street. The ~hairman asked for a show of hands as to those opposing and approving the request. It was noted that ll were in opposition and none present, but the applicant, approved the request. Mrs. Gina Alejandre, 250 Coralwood Court, stated that according to the Stewart Title Report, all lots within the Bonita Cove Subdivision are restricted to single-family use. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the possible traffic flow through Eucalyptus Court. Director Warren commented there is the question of the applicant's using Eucalyptus Court for traffic of any kind. He reiterated that the staff will recommend that a wall be constructed adjacent to this parking area to preclude any access to Eucalyptus Court for the R-3 use. Mr. Ferreira stated he would not accept this condition, that the street will be used to serve 6 additional lots on the hillside, and he does not intend to use it as a thoroughfare for the apartments. Member Adams felt the request was an intrusion into the residential area and an encroachment on the rights of the residents presently living there. Member York questioned that if the applicant moved his entire development 25 feet to the east, what would prevent having all the R-3 traffic moving in this direction. Mr. Warrentdeclared that the applicant must submit a site plan which must be approved by the Commission--to date, no plan has been submitted. Again, when this plan is submitted for approval, the staff will be recommending that a solid wall be constructed, which will preclude traffic here. -3- City Attorney Lindberg confirmed this, stating the answer was simply site plan control. Mr. Ferreira asked where, in the Code, did it state that he had to put up a wall. Mr. Lindberg explained that this condition would be under the site plan approval. Director Warren declared that the staff would be recommending this condition to the Commission. Beyond that, unless the proposed drive across subject lot to Eucalpytus Court was a dedicated street, to use this for access for the apart- ments would be an R-3 use. Mr. Ferreira remarked that he volunteered to put up a wall to prevent more than 16 spaces to use Eucalpytus Court. City Attorney Lindberg explained that the Ordinance prevents R~3 traffic using an R-1 access. As an easement, it is an access but if the street is dedicated, it becomes a public street and can be used for any type traffic. Mr. Ferreira stated that he questions the legality of the "D" zone. City Attorney Lindberg stated that conditions could be imposed under this zone. In the past, the Commission has adopted two resolutions establishing guidelines to assist developers in the development of their property. As to the legality of the condition of the wall, the staff would have to evaluate the plan first, and this requirement could be a reasonable one under certain circum- stances. Mr. Ferreira pointed out that he can put up this wall, get a final inspection from the City, and then bulldoze it the next day, and the City can do nothing about it. Member Hyde asked what the hardship was that justified the variance. Mr. Ferreira maintained that it was the difference in topography and the lot was too large. It will give the area some open space; as presently, it is just a "hole" and cannot be used for anything. When the new zoning ordinance is adopted, he will be able to reduce his parking spaces by about 28. At the present time, he is planning on 160 spaces, and under the new ordinance, he will only be required to put in 132. At that time, he will take this 30 feet and the additional 20 feet here and landscape it. As a matter of fact, he added, he plans to build his home on this lot. Chairman Stewart questioned the "hole"--he visited the site and claimed he didn't see any. Mr. Ferreira explained it was more of a 30 foot ~shelf", 8 feet deep. Member H~de asked if the Commission can legally grant a variance based on a temporary use. City Attorney Lindberg stated they can condition it upon the termination of a particular use, but the difficulty is that the reduction of parking spaces does not necessarily mean the removal of these spaces. -4- Chairman Stewart noted that there is no hardship shown in relation to the R-3 property that would justify granting the variance; that any change of topog- raphy was done by the applicant himself. Member Adams declared that it was obvious that the development could move 25 feet to the east. Member York rejected this, questioning the effect it would have on a 75' deep lot that would be created. Member Rice pointed out that the adjacent area is presently zoned R-3 even though the applicant states he will use it for commercial purposes. They need to look at a site plan. Member York maintained that even if the development is moved 25' eastward, the applicant still needs back-up space and would have to pave 25' beyond the parking area, and then another 25' for access for the R-l lots. Ir. this way, they will end up with 50' of paved area here. The Commission concurred that this matter could be considered when they get a site plan. MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Variance be denied based on the following reasons: 1. No exceptional circumstances were found that would justify gramting the variance. 2. It would be an encroachment of multiple-family use into the R-1 (single-family) residential property. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING - 370 K Street - Request for change of zone from R-1 and C-2 to R-3 L. Kuebler The application was read in which a request was made for a zone change from R-1 and C-2 to R-3 for property at 370 "K" Street. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area, the adjacent land use and zoning. He noted that the area contains 2.9 acres of vacant land. The applicant is also requesting that the front setback be set at 15'--it is presently set at 5'. One letter was received from a property owner in the area in which he expressed concern over the provision for drainage, which the Commission may wish to take into consideration. The staff recommends approval of the request and asks that the "D" zone be attached to insure protection for the single-family residential areas to the south. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Lawrence Kuebler, the applicant, stated he cannot add to what the Planning Director has already reported except that his development will add to the area. He has built the apartments across the street and these will be similar--two story, with parking to the south of the buildings. Member Hyde asked if he had any objection to having the "D" zone imposed. Mr. Kuebler indicated he had none. -5- There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Chairman Stewart commented in regard to the question of the drainage. He directed the staff to get together with the Engineering Division and work this out. City Attorney Lindberg reminded the Commission of the drainage ordinance the City now has, so this will be taken care of. Mr. Frank E. Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, Bonita, questioned the need for the "D" zone for this development--there was nothing in the area to which it should be made compatible. Besides, the developer is a reputable builder, and this is setting up dictatorial procedure. Mr. Arnold Stammer, San Miguel Road, questioned the rear yard setback and the two-story apartments. He felt the neighboring residents would be losing their privacy if the apartments were built too close to the rear yard. Chairman Stewart explained the requirements for a rear yard setback in an R-3 zone (15') and the fact that even in an R-1 zone, one can build a two-story home. In this instance, the applicant does not propose to build within 44' from the back yard. Mr. Kuebler stated part of the rear yard will be 44' and the rest 63' from the property line. MSUC (Adams-York) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending RESOLUTION NO. 504 to the City Council the Change of Zone for Property at 370 "K" Street from R-1 and C-2 to R-3-D and front setback be set at 15'. Findings be as follows: a. The attachment of the "D" zone will insure development which will protect the single-family area to the south. b. While the General Plan designates the entire "K" Street frontage between Third and Fourth Avenues as medium density residential which corresponds with the R-1 zone, in making closer studies of individual areas of the City both the consultants and the staff have concluded that the General Plan and the zoning map should be altered to reflect a high density residential (R-3) classification to the area. c. The present non-conforming industrial uses and commercial and industrial zoning in the area are illogical and ill-suited to the surrounding neighbor- hood. These uses should eventually be relocated in proper areas and replaced with residential uses. d. The Commission previously approved a variance for multiple dwellings on an abutting westerly parcel. e. The Commission and Council recently approved the rezoning of the property across "K" Street from C-2 to R-3-D in recognition of points a and b above. -6- Director of Planning Warren asked that Item No. 5 be considered before Item No. 4 since it is an amendment which will directly relate to Item No. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - Amendment to Zonin~ Ordinance establishin~ provision for regulation of double frontage commercially zoned parcels Director of Planning Warren explained the need for this provision: Presently in some parts of the City, there is the problem of shallow depth of some commercial zoning. One area in particular has lots split with R-1 and C-2 zonings on double frontage lots. Situations such as this should be corrected one way or another, and the staff is recommending that the Commission approve this amendment and recommend that the City Council adopt it into the zoning ordinance. Mr. Warren stated that in this case, there is commercial zoning across the street from residential use, and without controls, development could occur that would not be compatible with the residential zone. Director Warren then read the text of the amendment. Member Hyde questioned whether item No. 5 would preclude anyone from remodeling their home instead of removing it. Director Warren explained that what they are trying to do is to prevent an unsatisfactory situation that now exists and provide adequate commercial depth. The staff is assuming that it will involve redevelopment of the lot--it will be a unique situation and, therefore, the controls must be stringent. City Attorney Lindberg commented that he questions the requirement of the outright removal of a dwelling as required in the amendment. The dwelling could become a non-conforming use under certain conditions. In this instance, an attempt is being made to restrict a use that can legally exist simply because of a commercial development. He added that he cannot see the justification for such a requirement. Director Warren reasoned that the total lot will be developed; otherwise, nothing would be accomplished with this amendment. Member Hyde again asked about remodeling the dwelling and putting in a commercial facility. Member York suggested the wording here be changed, such as adding the word "substantial." The Commission further discussed the text of the amendment and a suggestion was made for a continuance of the item so that further study could be given to rewording paragraph 5. Mrs. R. W. Eskala, 680 W. Manor Drive, stated she opposes this because the businesses in the area are spoiling the whole residential area. Chairman Stewart explained the reason for the proposed amendment and the condi- tion that a wall be constructed between residential and commercial uses. MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Public hearing be continued to the meeting of April 15, 1968, in order that the staff and City Attorney can further study this proposed amendment. -7- PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING - 600 block of E. Manor Drive - From R-1 to C-2 Commission initiated MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Public hearing be continued to the meeting of April 15, 1968. PUBLIC HEARING - PREZONING - Property south of East Oxford Street, west of Gre~ RO§ers Park ~?rom County unzoned to R-1 - Mahs Construc- tion Company The application was read in which a request was made for prezoning to R-1 that property south of East Oxford Street, west of Greg Rogers Park. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area to be prezoned, the adjacent land use and zoning. He stated the area contains 20 acres of ~acant unzoned County land of which approximately 4.3 acres involves the San Diego Gas & Electric Company easement or right of way over which no development can take place. Director Warren noted the petition received opposing this prezoning. He added that before any development takes place, a subdivision map must be submitted; also, that this prezoning does not become effective until annexation is completed. Mr. Warren added that this was just a routine matter to prezone an area R-l, coinciding with the adjacent zones. Chairman Stewart added that when a subdivision map is submitted, the Commission then gets into all matters of drainage, streets, etc. Mr. Troy Kimborough, 337 Inkopah, said he was President of the Seaview Property Owners Association. They are not opposed to the annexation--the only reason they submitted the petition and appeared tonight is to ask the Commission to be aware of the following factors: (1) the safety factor--there is only one access to the area at the present time; (2) passage for the emergency vehicles; (3) grading problems; (4) drainage; and (5) they heard the lots would be reduced to 5000 square feet. Chairman Stewart asked the gentlemen to keep in touch with the staff so he would be aware of when the subdivision map comes in. Mr. Warren said he would notify Mr. Kimborou9h. Mr. Ray Seewall, 458 E. Oxford Street, questioned why the City prezones an area not yet in their jurisdiction. City Attorney Lindberg explained the prezoning process. Chairman Stewart further explained that the Commission would not consider a zone that was not compatible with the surrounding area or would serve a need-- such as being near a freeway interchange. It would always come before the Commission with a public hearing. -8- Mr. R. G. Boone, 1152 Oasis Avenue, stated he was not opposed to the prezoning but was concerned about the added traffic problem. He asked that someone come out and take a look at the situation. He added that the matter should be held until there is better access to the area. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the situation and concurred that there was no reason why it shouldn't be prezoned to R-1 at this time. MSUC (Adam~-Gregson) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending RESOLUTION NO. 505 to the City Council the Prezoning of Property south of East Oxford Street, west of Greg Rogers Park to R-I Findings be as follows: a. The request is in conformance with the General Plan which designates the area as medium density residential (4 to 7 units per acre). Mr. Warren remarked that all of these property owners will be notified of the City Council public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - San Diego Country Club - South of "L" Street and the end of First Avenue - Request for approval of cart storage buildin~ The application was read in which a request was made for permission to construct a baked enamel car storage building at the San Diego Country Club. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan commenting that the applicants first requested a special use permit from the County and they continued their hearing pending the outcome of this hearing. The city limit line actually bisects this building--30' being in the City and 30' in the County. Upon visiting the site, the staff hoped there would be some means of excavating so that the building would be as low as possible, as typically, anyone building next to a Country Club wants the view. On the other ~hand, there is need for storage on these premises. Mr. Warren noted the peti~i.~on received in protest of the request. He then reviewed and commented on the list of conditions the staff would ask be imposed if the approval is granted. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. John J. Bryan, 948 Club View Terrace, stated he was speaking for Ferdinand Fletcher, Vice-President of the Country Club. He said he would be happy to answer any questions, and added that primarily, the Country Club was in agree- ment with the conditions offered by the staff. They want to keep their good relations with these neighbors and with the City. Mrs. Vida Allen, 89 "L" Street, stated this construction will completely ruin the view she has from her window as they look down on this view. Member Guyer mentioned that the building will be only 9' high. -9- Mr. Bob Miles, 392 "E" Street, member of the Club, stated the present cart storage building was constructed 8 or 9 years ago and they have never received one complaint on this building. This proposed building will be similar in construction, it will be enclosed, quiet, and use solely for the storage of carts and repair. Mr. Bryan remarked that they will not be encouraging any repair work in this new building; as a matter of fact, the repair work has been removed 300' down to the middle of the golf course. Mr. Bryan then discussed the color and construction of the proposed building. Mrs. Pepita Torres-Campos, 898 First Avenue, stated that some of the problems encountered by the residents are being taken care of by the Club, such as closing off First Avenue. However, she has a plumbing problem because she is connected with the Country Club. She then proceeded to discuss her sewerage problem. City Attorney Lindberg stated this problem was not a part of the conditional use permit request; however, Mr. Bryan indicated in his letter to Mrs. Torres- Campos that they are working with these people on this problem. Mr. Warren remarked that the conditions agreed upon in Mr. Bryan's letter could not be imposed by the City. Mr. Leonard D. Booth, 889 First Avenue, felt the proposed building should be constructed so that it would be a sound barrier--the roof should be built of some other construction rather than metal. He would prefer to see a wooden building ]here. Member Gregson expressed concern about building over the water line. Mr. Warren explained that the City has no basic control over this; however, it does prevent the building from being lowered over 3'. Member Hyde asked if the Commission could condition the type of material to be in the construction. City Attorney Lindberg stated this must be done in regard to the specific problem. In this case, the Country Club intends to use this building in such a way as not to create a disturbance. The Commission discussed the construction and use of the proposed building. Mr. Bryan explained it would house approximately 30 to 35 cards, and would have a slab floor. The Water Company did not get a granted easement from the Country Club for this water line; however, they do recognize this easement and will not cause them any trouble in this regard. MSUC (Guyer-Hyde) Conditional use permit be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The height of the proposed structure shall not exceed 9' from the lowest point of excavation possible without interfering with the existing water line. 2. The existing access from First Avenue shall be closed. -10- 3. The area between the north end of the structure and the fence line shall be landscaped. 4. Detailed architectural plans shall be approved by the Planning Commission. Findings be as follows: a. The structure is necessary to provide storage for cart owners and will be located adjacent to the existing cart area. b. The building will meet all the health and safety standards within the community and will not be detrimental to the uses in the area. c. The proposed use will comply with the Ordinance subject to the conditions specified. d. The General Plan will not be affected. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Southeast corner of Trousdale and Glover Avenue - Request for approval of Building in F-2 zone J. Price The application was read in which a request was made for permission to construct a building at the southeast corner of Trousdale and Glover Avenue in the Sweetwater Valley Industrial Park, an F-2 zone. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and the adjacent land use. He stated this proposed building would be an expansion of an existing cabinet shop in an area that now has the F-2 classification (within the lO0 year flood zone). The staff is recommending approval of the request subject to the conditions suggested by the Division of Engineering. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission briefly discussed the use and agreed it should be approved. MSUC (Hyde-Rice) Conditional use permit be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Any floatable material should be confined to a warehouse area. 2. The constructed building shall be able to wit. hstand inundation by water and velocities expected in the area. Findings be as follows: a. Other similar uses are located directly west of this property and this building will abut an existing cabinet shop on the adjoining parcel. b. There are no detrimental aspects applying to this business. The conditions imposed by the Engineering Division will prohibit possible damage to other properties in the area. -11- c. The plans as submitted and the conditions imposed would result in the compliance of all applicable Code regulations. d. The General Plan will not be affected by this proposal. PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed amendment to zoning ordinance establishing Planned Unit Development Procedure Director of Planning Warren briefly discussed the text of the proposed ordinance stating it was lifted from the new proposed zoning ordinance to accommodate pending developments. Chairman Stewart questioned the paragraph on the financial ability of the proponents--how much responsibility should be demonstrated if a developer is one-half way through his project. City Attorney Lindberg indicated the staff would review this matter and they would be aware of the problems that could be created; however, it must be under- stood that something drastic could happen on any one of these situations; one cannot rule out the possib$1ity of a failure, for instance. All aspects of the situation must be considered. He added that the provision was a sound one and could not see how much further it could be clarified. Director Warren then commented on the 25% bonus provided in paragraph (c). He noted that many cities believe that the flexibility that is offered with the planned unit development is enough to compensate in itself. Some cities have no density bonus and others have as little as 10%. We believe a bonus is necessary to encourage the use of the planned unit development. The Commission discussed this provision. Director Warren declared that the developer would have to demonstrate that his development merits this 25% bonus. Member York questioned whether it was possible, under the Planned Unit Develop- ment, to have R-l, R-3 and Commercial uses in the same project. Mr. Warren commented that the zoning ordinance will have a planned district provision that would give them greater flexibility; however, to have multiple- family and commercial use in the development, the developer would have to have a zone change for such. The Commission discussed the permissibility of town houses in a planned unit development as opposed to apartment houses. City Attorney Lindberg noted that a town house development is clearly a single family type of development as opposed to an apartment house even though an apartment might be sold under the condominium concept. Member York clarified this question that even though each unit was under separate ownership, but one apartment was over another apartment, it would require an R-3 zone? City Attorney stated this was correct. Director Warren felt this matter should require some further investigation, since a fine line is drawn here. -12- This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Frank E. Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, Bonita, asked if the staff or Commission had any particular plan in mind that would require this Planned Unit Procedure to be lifted fron the new zoning ordinance and adopted at this time. Director Warren i~dicated they could have used this procedure a few weeks ago. Mr. Ferreira stated that if the Director is referring to his (Ferreira's) proposed subdivision, that it has been "shelved" and therefore, is requesting that this amendment be processed along with the rest of the new zoning ordinance. He added this was also the view of the Building Contractors Association, which luncheon meeting he attended this day. Mr. Bob Miles, 392 "E" Street, Chula Vista, discussed the density control. Mr. Miles added that the provision of recreation areas, such as golf courses, lakes, etc., are expensive and the developer must be compensated by a substan- tial increase in density. Director Warren explained that the Planning Commission and the City Council have to be bound by the underlying zoning. One issue is the density and use and how far the Commission can go in granting a concession. This Planned Unit Development procedure contemplates flexibility and lets you make the best use of the land. In theory, under this procedure, one can reduce the length of a street, the length of a utility line, etc., by clustering the buildings. This procedure contemplates a density bonus beyond these other economies. Mr. Miles felt that the 25% bonus would not do the job, as you can use up your bonus in the first two units if you build apartments in a Planned Unit Development. Chairman Stewart stated this was not true. City Attorney Lindberg explained that the bonus is based upon the total number of units that would be acceptable in a development. Mr. Ferreira spoke of the proposed zoning ordinance and the workshop meetings in which the text of the ordinance is discussed. He declared that a consultant attending the luncheon today stated he stopped attending the workshop meetings because he was not allowed to speak. The Building Contractors Association is now sending a letter to the City Council requesting a 90 day delay of the public hearing of the new zoning ordinance. Director Warren said he had no objection to delaying it for 90 days or 6 months, but the Commission has been working on this ordinance now for 2 years, and the staff has put many hours and hard work into it; as long as the Commission and the Council will continually delay the public hearings, without justification, the requests will come in. Chairman Stewart remarked that it would have been more appropriate if the letter had been addressed to the Commission. -13- Mr. Ferreira then contended that Mr. Eugene Cook, the consultant to whom he is referring, was not notified of the workshops. Director Warren stated this was not true--Mr. Cook was indeed notified of all of the workshops and the same material was sent to him that was sent to the Commission. City Attorney Lindberg discussed the proposed public hearings on the new zoning ordinance and the difficulties the Commission will encounter because of many sections involved. He stated that the Planned Unit Development Section is an important aspect of the zoning ordinance and not entirely out-of-place to consider it out of the zoning ordinance. He mentioned that San Diego held as many as 20 public hearings on this section alone. Director Warren indicated that if it is the desire of the Commission or anyone else to improve this Section, he would not object to continuing the hearing. Mr. Ferreira stated that the Council wanted the zoning ordinance to come to them in one piece. He added that he personally attended 95% of the workshop meetings and cannot recall having the Building Contractors Association putting their stamp of approval on this Planned Unit Development Procedure. Member Rice commented that he didn't feel the new zoning ordinance necessarily has to have their approval stamp. The Commission's intent is to do whatever is good for the City with everyone's thoughts considered. Director Warren said the staff received a report from Mr. Cook that incorporated the whole ordinance, including the Planned Unit Development procedure. Mr. Ferreira asked that Mr. Paul Manganelli (Associate Planner) give his views on %he Building Contractors luncheon which he attended. Mr. Manganelli stated there was dissatisfaction voiced as to some of the provisions in the new zoning ordinance, such as the proposed house size, for instance. Mainly, the discussion was on the progress of the ordinance, and he reported to them that work sessions were over and one more public hearing was necessary by the Commission. Hopefully, it would be adopted in one form or another and sent to Council. Mr. Manganelli added that he also informed the group that all of the changes would be typed into a synopsis form--a fifth draft of the entire ordinance could not be typed and printed at this time because of the lack of money in the Planning budget. Other things were discussed but this was outside of the meeting. City Attorney Lindberg stated that the discussion as to what went on at that meeting this afternoon is so far removed to this hearing concerning the ordinance, that it is not relevant. Mr. Miles remarked that they all felt disappointed as far as the proposed zoning ordinance was concerned, because of Mr. Manganelli's statement that they could not print up a fifth draft. It was at this time that Mr. Cook stated he was not allowed to speak at these workshop meetings, and the Contractors Associa- tion is now asking a little closer coordination with the final aspects of this matter. -14- Mr. Ferreira declared that the Building Contractors Association will be a strong organization in the County and should have their say in this matter, and will have their say. The Commission discussed the importance of considering the Planned Unit Development procedure independently from the zoning ordinance. Member York felt the Building Contractors Association should be heard on this if they have anything they can contribute to it, and the hearing continued. Member Hyde suggested the Commission approve this tonight and sent it on to the Council. He added that any action the Commission takes will not hurt anyone-- that the Council will have to conduct a public hearing on it. Chairman Stewart remarked that he regretted the ill feeling that has been caused concerning this matter and suggested a postponement of two weeks at which time the interested parties should make every effort to review this Section and offer any changes, etc. Member Guyer agreed, adding that the staff be sure that Mr. Cook gets a copy of this Section. Member York made a motion that the public hearing on this matter be continued to the meeting of April 15. Member Hyde then made a secondary motion approving this Planned Unit Development Procedure as presented. Member Rice seconded the motion. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Members Hyde, Rice, and Adams NOES: Members Gregson, Stewart, Guyer and York ABSENT: None Member York's motion for continuance to April 15 was then seconded by Member Guyer and passed by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members York, Guyer, Gregson, Stewart, and Adams NOES: Members Hyde and Rice ABSENT: None Discussion - Proposed City Code amendments relatin~ to dance hall regulations Director of Planning Warren asked that this matter be held over to the meeting of April t5. MSUC (York-Gregson) Matter be postponed to the April 15 meeting. -15- To Be Set For Public Hearing - Consideration of the proposed new zoning ordinance Director of Planning Warren stated that the staff had anticipated writing a synopsis of the changes in the fourth draft and have this distributed prior to the public hearing, which the staff is suggesting to be set for April 29. If they are not allowed to do it this way, then they will have to type a fifth draft for this public hearing, and then again, a sixth draft when it goes to the City Council. Mr. Warren added that he does now have additional clerical help and could get a fifth draft typed; however, it would not be ready for the April 29 hearing, and secondly, there is no available money in the Planning budget to be able to get a fifth draft printed. City Attorney Lindberg pointed out that typing up a fifth draft now would be a waste of time and money--an entire new draft has to be typed before it can be presented to the City Council. Mr. Ferreira commented that if it means his going to the City Council to ask for more money, he would be willing to do it. Mr. Warren stated that the fourth draft will be made available to anyone wanting a copy and along with it they will get the significant changes delineated in a syn,opsis form. Mr. Ferreira declared he would have to spend hours getting these changes into his book. He added that this matter was of such importance that it should have an entire new draft. Director Warren remarked that the staff is suggesting April 29 for the public hearing. At this meeting, the Commission will probably get through just the residential zones, and then have to continue the hearing. MSUC (York-Hyde) Public hearin~ on the new proposed zonin~ ordinance be set for April 29 Discussion - Amendment to Zonin§ Ordinance concerning sale of used merchandise in C-1 zone Director of Planning Warren referred to the letter sent to the Commission by the City Attorney. He is recommending that this matter be set up with a conditional use permit which will require a public hearing. Mr. Warren noted a letter received from the Downtown Association in which they still expressed concern about this. They will be notified of the public hearing and can then come in to discuss it. City Attorney Lindberg discussed the Salvation Army store that stimulated this amendment. He said he suggested an emergency ordinance which would be effective for 90 days which he hoped would allay some of the fears of the Downtown Association that there is not at present sufficient control over these opera- tions. Director Warren indicated he did not agree with the emergency ordinance--this matter was too controversial; that after a P~!a~i~ng~Gommission hearing, the Commission may wish to recommend to the City Council, the adoption of an emergency ordinance. -16- MSUC (Guyer-Gregson) Public hearing be set for April 15, 1968. Request for extension of time on variance - Care & Retirement Enterprises, Inc. Southeast corner Fourth Avenue and Center Street Director of Planning Warren referred to the letter received asking for an extension of time on their variance and conditional use permit. This is for the construction of the convalescent facility. The staff would recommend approval. MSUC (Adams-Rice) Approval of a one-year extension on both applications; subject permits will now expire on April 23, 1969. Member York abstained from voting on this motion. Oral Communications Mr. Frank E. Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, Bonita, stated he was quite disap- pointed with the representative the Planning Department sent to the luncheon meeting this afternoon (Building Contractors Association). He asked what status Mr. Manganelli held with the City. Mr. Warren stated he was the Associate Planner. He was sent to represent the Planning Director at this meeting. After further inquiry, Mr. Ferreira was advised by the Chairman that matters concerning the staff should first be discussed with the Director. Mr. Ferreira then discussed Item No. 7 on the agenda--the conditional use permit for the San Diego Country Club. City Attorney Lindberg informed Mr. Ferreira that the public hearing was closed, and if he so chooses, he can appeal the decision. Mr. Ferreira asked that the findings be read. Director Warren read the findings. Mr. Lindberg stated that the people who were interested in this matter have left and cannot testify--that it would be improper now to "rehash" this matter; to question an item that has been determined at a public hearing is out of order. Mr. Ferreira declared that, as a citizen, he has every right to ask questions. Member Adams felt that these questions could be answered by the staff. City Attorney Lindberg stated that the Commission can determine the propriety of questions as they go along. Mr. Ferreira asked why the "D" zone wasn't imposed on this. Chairman Stewart stated that they cannot impose the "D" zone on a conditional use permit request. -17- Mr. Ferreira then questioned whether a sheet metal building was compatible with the other buildings in the area, and whether this baked enamel building was substantiated in any way to be sound-proof. Chairman Stewart declared the Commission never stated the building would be sound-proof, but in granting the variance, they determined that it would be compatible. Mr. Ferreira then asked if any other conditional use permit was ever granted to anyone wishing to build over an easement. Mr. Warren indicated the answer to this would have to be researched. City Attorney Lindberg stated that one can build over an easement as long as he is given the right to do so by the utility company. Mr. Ferreira declared that there was a multiplicty of problems here: the Country Club has at least one-half mile of room here to construct this build- ing, and he was denied his variance request for 25 feet. Chairman Stewart explained to Mr. Ferreira that his request was for a variance-- the Country Club was granted a conditional use permit. Mr. Ferreira and the Commission then discussed the particular use this building would imply. Mr. Warren stated it was an accessory use which is subject to a conditional use permit. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Rice-Hyde) Meeting be adjourned to the meeting of Arpil 15, 1968. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fulasz v Secretary